Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 16 December	18 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Lazaroff[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~GNG fail, promotional. The sources are very poor. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, I found some sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keep vote does not address policy Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio De Nardo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHESS. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Competed in the 2nd Chess Olympiad in 1928 as a member of the Italian national team and deletion would turn a blue link on the Chess Olympiad page into a red link~~, making him the only participant without a page~~.[strike my false claim, there are about 8 of around 70 players in the 1928 Chess Olympiad without articles]. Article has sources. Removal would not improve the encyclopedia in any way and would be antagonistic to the goal to build the web. Quale (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quale, MOS:BUILD aims at allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. However, this is a person whose only notable relationship with Chess was playing in that olympiad. So, the standalone article provides no additional useful information. Red links of non-notable subjects are corrected by removing the link altogether. Sources in the article have matches listed, almost all rated games are recorded, that's bordering on indiscriminate information, there's literally nothing to build a biography with. NCHESS specifically mentions chess olympiad and says one must win a medal to be presumed notable. Moreover, as a player whose career is already over, GNG is a reasonable expectation. This is a person who played one olympiad and quit chess altogether and did other normal people stuff his whole life. Mention of his name in the squad for said olympiad is all the required understanding on the subject that we need. All other claims made in the article are unsupported, as none of the sources even write one sentence of prose on him. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Please explain to me how it does not deepen the reader's understanding of the the 2nd Chess Olympiad to be able to learn more about the participants, including those competing for the Italian team. And who are you to tell me or anyone else what is all the information I or we need about a chess olympiad competitor? I understand that you have no interest in the chess olympiads and probably no interest in chess either, but although WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is a great reason for you to not read articles about chess, it is not a good reason to delete those articles. Many people do only one encyclopedically notable thing in their lives, but as it happens, one is enough. In this case that one thing was playing as a member of a national team in the top international team competition in a sport. Finally, WP:NCHESS is total crap, but that certainly isn't your fault. The Italian wikipedia article lists an Italian chess encyclopedia as a source, and likely this could be used to source most of the article. Quale (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quale, please do not misrepresent my position to suit your refutation needs (see Straw man), or engage in divining my affiliations or my motives (see Ad hominem or even WP:NPA).

At the risk of repeating myself, the article does not further the understanding on the subject because the only bit of verifiable information presented there are the matches played by the subject, of which only Olympiad matches are of note which are best covered in the Olympiad article. It is difficult to presume notability in absence of WP:SIGCOV such as we do in case of rising players or players not yet retired because the player retired almost a hundred years ago, and other than participating in that one olympiad, went on to do normal people things. Olympiad participation is not enough to confer notability according to WP:NCHESS which I find very reasonable. I will leave you to ponder the irony of your linking WP:IDLI in a comment which goes on to say WP:NCHESS is total crap. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No other sources that pass WP:SIGCOV found by WP:BEFORE searches. Don't want to reiterate nom's points, but sources in article are all statistics pages that don't pass WP:GNG, don't address subject directly enough to not need original research to extract content. Yes, there's a book cited in the Italian Wikipedia, but it's only one source and doesn't pass the multiple requirement of GNG. Removal would help Wikipedia by preventing it from resembling an indiscriminate collection of information. UnnamedUser (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 23:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Arts (New Zealand)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable television station, with the article itself using language like pivotal insights and high quality without quality sources to back those claims; I doubt language like that is anything else than advertising in this case. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 23:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can only find this save for trivial mentions and that is not significant coverage by any stretch. Not a real option for a redirect or merge given it being an unlikely search term and it would be the only channel given a section at Sky (New Zealand) if a merge took place. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 00:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Pass WP:GNG (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 20:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hedayatollah Behboudi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability Personasiran (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Personasiran (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Personasiran (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 23:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing in this article seems perfectly adequate unless the nominator wants to explain how it falls short of our notability criteria. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the English sources check out. Is this an WP:IDONTLIKE nom? Bearian (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Zarova[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was essentially a resume (see history), and still is basically a now slightly shorter resume. The job titles do not guarantee notability per GNG or PROF, and the publications likewise don't suggest anything above regular stuff done by a regular academic (look in the history--it's all articles). Not a single secondary source is cited, and the awards and titles, well, they're just job titles. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTCV (note: as this appears to be one of those "flyby, hasn't looked for sources" deletes please trout as approriate:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article creator appears to have copied this from their creation in Russian WP see here so no help there (and forgot to include a translate notice, tsk, tsk:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a carelessly written CV. Fails WP:Prof#C1on citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a medium to host your own résumé. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTRESUME. In 2007, this would be forgivable, but in 2019, everyone knows we are an American charity, not a free web-host for Russians. This is clearly (based on the article history) an autobiography by the subject, who is run of the mill as academics and college administrators go. The burden for conflicts shifts to the fiduciary per Meinhard v. Salmon. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Elected Member of the International Statistical Institute is an honorary level of membership from a scholarly society of the type described in WP:PROF#C3, but I think it is not selective enough to pass C3 by itself (as evidenced e.g. by the fact that Zarova and others have been honored despite having citation counts that would not meet C1). And nothing else here appears close to rising to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this resume. Trillfendi (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a confirmed bocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jubilees[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown band, who were unsigned and never released anything commercially. There are 3 references, all of which are dead and one merely refers to the guitarist joining a more well known band some years later Hwillis29184 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now the references have been fixed, the best one is from the BBC here Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to War of the Ring#Dale. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dale[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional battle in LOTR. Is only really referenced in the appendix to The Return of the King. While some of the conflicts in LOTR do pass WP:GNG, this one is not one of them. Hog Farm (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Battle of Dale is a relatively minor part of The Lord of the Rings. There does not appear to be any substantial discussion of this battle's importance. To put it bluntly, it seems like there was a horde of Tolkien fans who raided the appendices so that they could make even more useless articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As stated, the battle was not even described in the actual narrative of the LotR itself, merely mentioned in the timelines of events in the appendices. Additionally, a lot of the current article appears to be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and the only sources being used are primary. Actual reliable, secondary sources discussing this minor, fictional battle in any depth outside of plot summary do not appear to exist.Rorshacma (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to have an article on something that was never covered in an actual literary work, only in appendices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tolkiencruft = no evidence of importance to anyone outside Tolkien fans (not even Tolkien scholars, no dedicated entry in Tolkien Encyclopedia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War of the Ring#Dale. Goustien (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War of the Ring#Dale, since it already exists there. Not only doesn't this have any real world notability, doesn't have any in-universe notability either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Itay Lukach[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. . Nothing on social media, nor on the usual music sites. There is some coverage. Please check scope_creep^Talk 21:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless somebody can translate the references, this is nonsense to our core readership on English Wikipedia. We are not a listing of every actor around the world. We usually delete articles about DJs, who are run of the mill unless proven notable by significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has been noticed as a comedian in Israel, and was briefly mentioned in a Guardian article about that country's comedy scene: [1]. Here are some additional media profiles: [2], [3]. Of the Hebrew sources already used in the article, #1 appears to be a fairly reliable media profile, but the others are diversions to his wedding announcement and a restaurant review that he wrote during his side gig a "journalist". And on that topic, I can find no evidence that he really is a journalist as described in the article. Alas, small media mentions in relation to other things don't quite add up to enough notability for the guy on his own terms. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG , some of news source here but very questionable.-Nahal^(T) 00:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Losel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor D&D monster. No evidence of real world notability; no secondary sources are cited, and none were identified in a search. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor is an understatement for this one. There is almost nothing regarding these creatures outside of the handful of primary sources. There is certainly nothing in any reliable, secondary sources that would even come close to passing the WP:GNG or necessitating any kind of merge or redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dndcruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Wikipedia is not a manual to play your own dungeons and dragons game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn by nom. The (former) article redirects to Greyhawk now. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suloise[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional race of humans from Greyhawk, a D&D setting. No evidence of real-world notability, no secondary sources cited, nothing identified after a search. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Greyhawk. BOZ (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as above. As usual, I see no value in the deletion of information that can be merged elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where do you envisage the material going in the target article? Which particular parts do you propose keeping? I have no objection whatsoever to you merging the content right now. I'll happily withdraw the nomination if the article becomes a redirect to the merge target. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Like so? [4] BOZ (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy with that. The content is still in the history, so if you or Necrothesp feel anything can be merged, that can be done fairly easily. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Ferranti[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. No effective coverage. Two mentions for arrest. Single event. Nothing else. scope_creep^Talk 21:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local arrest coverage does not add up to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as well as WP:BLP. We demand much better sources whenever a BLP is weighted unduly about an alleged criminal past. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Mills (Kent cricketer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. We appear to have a name and a single match he played in in 1744 which was not first-class so he fails the technical aspects of NCRIC and ATHLETE. Other than a single scorecard and a fleeting mention as having been replaced in another match in the same year, we don't appear to have anything else other than a name. CricketArchive has only a name and his single match (this profile). The article claims that "the sources" tell us he was a gamekeeper, but these are unsupported by secondary references - the single source that is given for this claim is a self-published source that the article author created and which is of dubious reliability. I can find no other sources that aren't copies of either the Wikipedia article or this source and there is no reference to him in any of the Kent sources I have available. We simply lack any other biographical information from suitable sources, so there's no way we'll ever be able to create a biography which meets WP:GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that he meets WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N. As noted by the nominator, even the claims of notability are limited and poorly sourced. Harrias ^talk 21:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, presumably he is this guy, hasn't played matches rated as first-class. StickyWicket (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; fails NCRIC and I can't find any sources that contribute towards GNG. Of the sources in the article I am curious whether this is reliable and where they got that information from. Could or does the book by F. S. Ashley-Cooper contain significant coverage of him? Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a self published source and has issues with reliability unfortunately (the link made in the source between John Mills and another Mills who played in the same match as brothers has, for example, absolutely no evidence to back it up and is simply extrapolated by the source's author from their names). I don't think we could rely on it to make an assumption that other sources exist that could get this to a GNG level of sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Any proposed renaming should be handled the usual way. RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilton Ware[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A long-defunct pottery manufacturer that does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. There are no sources in the article, and searching for sources only turns up storefronts and for-sale pages selling some of their goods. I can find no actual sources discussing the brand. I initially PRODed this without realizing that a PROD had been contested on the day of the article's creation, so I brought it here once that was pointed out to me. Rorshacma (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - See below comments for explanation. I do agree with SpicyMilkBoy that, based on the sources, the article may need to be renamed. Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found at 1, 2, 3, with others in passing. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm not super convinced that those sources are enough to establish notability for the company/product - they seem to be very brief, one or two sentence entries just establishing it existed, but not much else. I'll leave this AFD up for now, but if other editors weigh in agreeing with you, I will withdraw it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article should probably be renamed to "A.G. Harley Jones Pottery Company" or something along those lines, as Wilton Ware was just one of its trade names. In addition to what Mccapra found, there are a few more sources that discuss this pottery company and their Wilton Ware - Encyclopedia of pottery & porcelain, 1800-1960 (p.175), Miniature Coloured Cottages (p.63) the latter is in snippet view, but the blurb on the search page looks promising: "Wilton China The trademark of A G Harley Jones at Wilton Pottery, Fenton which was started in 1905 and continued until 1934 when he became bankrupt. The firm was quite successful until 1920 after which time he expanded his business and ..." Note that the pottery is variously known as "Wilton China", "Wilton Ware", "Wilton pottery", and A.G. Harley Jones' name is spelled with varying punctuation, which makes searching annoying. Given the company's age, it's very likely that there are more sources offline. And while this is not really a policy based argument, I tend to assume that if someone cares enough to write an article about something 80 years after the fact, it's probably notable... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that, in addition to what Mccapra found, is good enough for me! I'll Withdraw the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't think it's necessary to withdraw the nomination - it's not an obvious speedy keep case, and someone may yet chime in with a good argument to delete (or more sources to improve the article). But it's up to you. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Wilton Pottery, Fenton. Because they are physical collectables, pottery is well recorded in published works, so that it is thoroughly appropriate to have an article. If there are variations in the company name, that is not an appropriate rename target, but the name of the pottery might be. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bridge to Everywhere[edit]

The result was Withdrawn . @Ktrain85: The egg is on my face. I totally didn't see WP:MUSICBIO#7! My apologies there. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't like nominating new articles for deletion, but this one pretty clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. All coverage I could find has been local, and I couldn't find any highly notable alumni of the group. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MJL! Thanks for your note. I think that the ensemble is notable through #7 of WP:MUSICBIO, as one of the prominent examples of a new style of American classical music that is currently emerging (mostly in Los Angeles) that combines musical elements from other cultures into a classical music setting. Some contemporary composers currently writing in this style are Reena Esmail, Juan Pablo Contreras, Conor Brown, and Salina Fischer - but Bridge to Everywhere is one of the only performing ensembles that specializes in this particular genre/style of classical music. The group combines Western classical musical elements with non-Western ones (Hindustani classical music, Balkan folk, West African drumming, Arabic music, etc). I'm an ethnomusicologist and arts educator who is constantly tracking trends in the classical world, so I see this style/genre on the horizon about to make a significant impact on the classical music scene, where there has been a LOT of talk about "diversity" and how to be relevant to contemporary society. However, most of this talk about "diversity" has been centered around diversifying the performers (increasing the # of people of color in orchestras, etc) while playing the same old canon of classical music (written mostly by dead white men from Europe), rather than actually integrating diverse musical influences from diverse cultures of today into the classical music itself (what Bridge to Everywhere and some contemporary composers are doing). The approach that Bridge to Everywhere is taking to classical music is having a significant affect on the way these "diversity" discussions are playing out within the classical world. But perhaps I'm jumping the gun a bit with how recognized this currently is in the mainstream - It might make more sense to merge this article into the article on Derrick Spiva (one of the founders of Bridge to Everywhere), as a section. Let me know what you all think! Thanks. Ktrain85 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Khambatta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable scientist (not a professor), who has co-published some papers as a post-doc that have not been picked up by any material RS. Very little RS on this subject outside of commercial blogs/websites for diabetes treatment programs; no material regional or national U.S. media outlet have covered him (and zero at SIGCOV level). The article has a PROMO-feel promoting the subject's "achievements" and "businesses" in the diabetes therapeutic area (even though no decent RS thinks them notable enough to cover them). There are copyvio issues (per tags), and the article author also uploaded the bio picture of the subject in commons stating they are the copyright owner (possible WP:COI and/or WP:UPE angle). I ask the AfD community for their input. Britishfinance (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly not notable as a scientist, to get that out of the way. We are talking about a businessman here. In that capacity, from my quick searches:

Pros: - quite the presence in the blogosphere

Cons: - that's the "nutrition fad blogosphere"; things like this and this. Mostly very non-neutral, echo-chamberish stuff. Admittedly there's at least one highly referenced fact-based takedown. Still, single person outlets it is.

- can't find a single reputable review of his flagship publication, "Mastering Diabetes".

Overall, leaning delete, unless better sources than the above are presented. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, and doesn't meet WP:GNG either for the nutrition fad end of things either. Similar to Elmidae, I'm not seeing sources that are suitable showing significant coverage. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is overly promotional and if we cut that out there would be no substance at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but we never publish original research. In 2007, that could be excused, but it's almost 2020. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrutsav[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student "cultural festival". Even if notability can be established, the article is so larded with WP:PEACOCKery and WP:PROMO content as to warrant WP:TNT. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - this is obviously an ordinary student event - to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. as per :Bearian, Nitrutsav to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela.-Nahal^(T) 00:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Evers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She is simply not notable. Sources include tweets from the campaign trail (promotional, not independent of the campaign) and passing mentions in reliable sources. First ladies of a U.S. state are not considered inherently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tony Evers. Almost all relates to him. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Governor of Wisconsin Tony Evers. Non-notable person. Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to Tony. "First lady" at the state level is not an inherently notable role that guarantees an article to every spouse of a state governor — the national first lady gets that, but state first ladies are only notable if they get over a regular notability criterion on their own activities independently of who they happen to be married to. But this features entirely too much primary and unreliable sourcing (Twitter tweets are a no-no), and not nearly enough of the reliable kind: even the real media sources mostly aren't about her, but merely mention her name in the process of being about Tony. Accordingly, a bit of content about her in Tony's article would be perfectly appropriate, but the substance and sourcing here don't rise to the level of earning her a standalone BLP separately from him. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are articles about the subject in RS not currently used in the article that a WP:BEFORE turns up. See the articles in WKOW on her dementia work; Heavy for general coverage; WISN on helping children and the elderly; the Associated Press stated she was the one "who led the state’s efforts to mark the anniversary" of her state marking the 100th anniversary of adopting the 19th amendment; and she's worked with the Wisconsin Historical Society for events. --Kbabej (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kbabej, that's all pretty weak, hence why I did BEFORE and nominated anyway. Those articles don't provide any biographical information about her, other than verifying that she is the first lady of Wisconsin. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. It's possible that she will get more coverage during her term as first lady, but what she has received so far does not amount to WP:SIGCOV. Even "Kathy Evers, Tony Evers' Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know", which is in the article as a source, is mostly about him, not her. I found a few other pieces of coverage, but they are minimal - she chaired the committee organising the celebration of the 100th anniversary in 2019 of Wisconsin ratifying the amendment giving women the right to vote (the first state to do so), but all that's reported of the major events is that the ceremony included "comments from first lady Kathy Evers, who led the state's efforts to mark the centenary". WAOW and WSAU (AM) did a story on her visiting schools to mark the centenary [5], [6]. I found one news story about the 2018 Warren-Baldwin rally in Wisconsin that says "Kathy Evers, the wife of state Superintended Tony Evers, who is challenging Gov. Scott Walker, introduced Baldwin at the rally". Very little about her, with not even her comments reported, often. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the spouses of the United States state governors are notable; Betty Cooper Hearnes was married to Missouri Governor Warren Hearnes. Betty Cooper Hearnes served in the Missouri General Assembly and would be notable. Lurleen Wallace wife of Alabama Governor George Wallace is another example; Lurleen Wallace served as Governor of Alabama and died from cancer while still in office. I agree with User:RebeccaGreen that the article about Kathy Evers would be too soon. Consequently, I wanted to give examples that some spouses of United States state governors are notable in their own right. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a political spouse is not an accomplishment. What does she do outside of that, which would be considered noteworthy? Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Its already been moved to draft once and by the description this is some way from being a credible candidate for an article Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in Wonder Park[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON, only real source of the series is back from 2017 with barely updates on the series since- January 2020 premiere currently listed in the article is completely unsourced/WP:OR. Magitroopa (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should probably be noted that this was moved to draftspace, however, the user who created the article seems to not like that it was moved to be a draft... this definitely should be moved back to draft and have the article (the one nominated for deletion) deleted. Magitroopa (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Return to draft and move-protect it. Simple. ミラ P 00:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create protect. TOOSOON, work on the draft article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shown to have WP:SIGCOV in several WP:RS/P sources; if it goes nowhere, can always be merged into the main Iran–United States relations article in the future. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Action Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable enough for stand-alone page. Simply warrants mention on United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran–United States relations, etc. Loksmythe (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Loksmythe (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of RSes support the notability of subject including the atlantic, US department of state, washington post, aljazeera, fp4america, bloomberg, VOA, RadioFarda, DW and so on. Only Expanding is needed.--Saff V. (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting GNG per RS highlighted by Saff V. The organization is only likely to grow in notability as seen in RS coverage it continues to receive now months after its formation.[7][8] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. But if the cruft is not pruned I can see the next discussion going a different way. There may be a need to discuss why we have 3 Buffy character articles. that seems at least 1 too many. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a bare bones list of every minor creature or character in the series. It is not needed for a general encyclopedia, so it is not a proper content fork. Buffyverse seems to cover a couple more substantial ones. The topic does not establish its own notability. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough blue links have their own articles to make this a valid list article. Dream Focus 18:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a huge amount of scholarship on Buffy, including on it villains and the various supernatural beings. And Dream Focus's point is a good one. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure fancruft and Wikia material. So far, the two keep votes have not elucidated on what sources would make this list pass WP:LISTN. A list of minor villains and creatures is not notable and the blue links just point to episodes, of which this is not a list of._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge We also have a merge proposed with Vengeance demon and related current AFDs for Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Big Bad, and Vengeance demon. While I agree that each of these individually are generally non-notable with only in-universe content and sourcing, but I don't think it all needs to go outright. A managed merge of these and others into this list page as well as Buffyverse could touch on each topic without so many separate fandom pages. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - would like to hear more how this is a "content fork" if "it is not needed for a general encyclopedia". It either is ok for the encyclopedia and is a fork of some other article, or not needed and it isn't a fork. You can't argue both ways. Also, just as a heads up. If you keep on AfD every list of x article just because you hate these articles, I'll start blanket opposing them all. --Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Forks and splits are justified as being necessary companion articles for the main article. This is used for things like character lists and episode lists, regardless if they can establish notability or not. There needs to be some kind of utility present to bypass notability guidelines. This list has no utility. It has no use to the general reader. It’s a list for fans and fans alone. That disqualifies it from being a split. TTN (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not satisfied this goes beyond WP:TRIVIA, fails WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep&revise per WP:TNT. The one-time villains (~90% of the list) don't need to be mentioned at all and can go. But most villains with currently PLOT-ty stand-alone articles should probably be merged somewhere, and this page could be turned into a merge target for them and the AfDed "races". On the other hand, there already is List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters and List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, which can also serve as merge targets. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For my last edit of the year, I will note that this topic is the subject of published print encyclopedias and is surely worthwhile for inclusion here. There is no legitimate benefit to this site to delete this content and keep this discussion. What actual purpose does that serve? The contents of this article are from a major TV and comic book franchise beloved by millions. It brings viewers to this site (possible donors...) as well. It can be sourced through reliable published sources, including secondary sources. Okay, so to some who are not fans or are ignorant of it, it may seem trivial, but so what? Keeping this improvable content is to the benefit of at least some sizable segment of this site's readership. Deleting it doesn't do any good for anyone. So, instead of having the article, we'd what rather have a bunch of discussions of a handful of editors debating about it over a week? This is just baffling and bizarre. As for the nomination of "it is not needed for a general encyclopedia", well what is "needed"? Wikipedia is not limited in the way that traditional print encyclopedias were. Are you also going to clear out everything from here, for example? I suspect this fictional stuff means a lot more to a lot more people than every asteroid or minor planet out there. For the record, neither should be deleted because isn't the point of this project to collect all the information scattered on earth and make it accessible to the masses, whether we as individuals personally are invested in any individual content or not? I hope the nominator either finds a useful hobby or at least starts creating and adding to articles himself, because no reasonable person can take an honest look at his edit history and see anything other than boilerplate prods and afds without being suspicious that the nominator is either a bot or has some crusade going here. It is not about assuming good faith here, either, it is apparent that the nominator's account single-purpose has always been rapid fire indiscriminate nominations of articles for deletion with no sign of actually wanting to build anything. This ant-fiction crusade that has been going for over a decade borders on unhealthy and I actually wish that the nominator can find something worthwhile and joyous to do with his life. With that, I genuinely wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Good bye for this year, though. --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfills informational/navigation purposes WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Dream Focus, but only after pruning all of the one-shot beings. That still leaves sufficient bluelinked articles for the list to work as a navigational aid. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Keep comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. No previous deletions or proposed deletions, so treating this like an expired WP:PROD due to lack of feedback. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Hand Stories[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A PBS program that did air, but never made it past the pilot episode. The current article is unsourced. When I searched for additional sources, I did find a handful of mentions, but all of them appear to just be brief snippets describing it as an upcoming show, published prior to its air date. I could not find any type of in-depth review or discussion of it, which makes it appear to fail the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda (Kannada film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film which hasn’t been discussed in sufficient reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current sources are insufficient to demonstrate the notability of this film. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are insufficient to show the origins of this film, not reliable source.-Nahal^(T) 00:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna Panday[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her. A WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions but nothing indepth and she appears to be related to a notable person Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete She's popularly known for being Ananya Panday's cousin. Notability is not inherited. Clear case of WP:INVALIDBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't meet the WP:GNG criteria. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Glover[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Glover was mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut. Being a mayor is not a sign of default notability. However our sources only establish that Glover was mayor of the city. That is not enough to show notability. We would need sources discussing more than his election, and the results of elections. This type of coverage can be found on any mayor who served anywhere that press coverage of local politics existed, which covers almost every mnicipality that has existed from at least 1830 on. None of this comes even close to showing notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, but this features neither the content nor the sourcing needed to get him over the bar that mayors actually have to clear. The notability test for mayors is the ability to write a substantive article about his political importance, not just the ability to verify his victories. But after stating that he existed, the only other content here is a one by one list of the candidates he defeated each time he ran for election, which is not the kind of content we're looking for, and there aren't nearly enough sources to push him over the line. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Mayors are not given default notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridging Eastern and Western Psychiatry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't appear to be a notable or legitimate "journal" and mostly just self published material. The ISSN gives no hits here and it doesn't appear to be cited elsewhere. It also doesn't appear to be a notable organization. Praxidicae (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't turn up evidence that it is a wiki-notable journal, and there doesn't appear to be a suitable merge or redirect target. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of starships in Stargate[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a collection of fictional details without any real world information for proper context or sources to establish notability. This is not a valid article split. The information here is for fans. The general reader will get nothing from such an article. TTN (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (probably delete) I see no way to merge that and all those citation linking to other articles on wikipedia is a huge red flag for me. This feels like it belongs to the Stargate wikipedia, not here. TTN You should probably ping the voters of the previous AfD. Govvy (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I knew this was coming, so I already merged the present production info to List of Stargate SG-1 characters#Earth ship crew characters a while ago (no attribution problems because of the shared merge source List of Earth starships in Stargate, which now redirects to the LoC section). Any design info on other races' ships could be added to the Mythology of Stargate article in the future. I know that I have some production info on the season 8-10 ships in TV Zone magazines at home, but (1) that doesn't really help with notability as they are interviews with PRIMARY, and (2) I really don't care about spaceships and can't be bothered to dig them up to see if they're really worth much. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ALLPLOT crufty material that belongs on Wikia, etc. Fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't think of any fictional starship list that would pass muster. [Insert snarky Jack O'Neill quip here.] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN informational lists should be kept. Lightburst (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Almost every reference is using another Wikipedia article. Obvious fansite material nothing encyclopedic, therefore does not pass WP:LISTN (Lightburst you haven't even explain how this is actually meets the policy). Ajf773 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Some more uncited fancruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree it fails LISTN; there don't appear to be any RSes covering the set. – Levivich 06:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails our notability requirements, and would be better housed at Wikia. Reyk _YO! 09:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Emmerdale[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as the other four similarly-named articles, this is a fan article that belongs on fandom. It is not useful for a general encyclopedia, and notability is not established for the list itself. TTN (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Belongs on a fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Argument here is on the merit of the article, and in that regard it has no merit per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while notability is arguable per WP:FANCRUFT. GUtt01 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soapcruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm an avid editor on British soap opera articles and usually strive to keep every soap-related article, but this is quite clearly WP:FANCRUFT. – DarkGlow (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete fancruft. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Hollyoaks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as the other three similarly-named articles, this is a fan article that belongs on fandom. It is not useful for a general encyclopedia, and notability is not established for the list itself. TTN (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Belongs on a fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft has gone to an extreme with these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even scarier, this list has existed for 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soapcruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Utter fancraft.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Jones[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL as only ever elected as a local councillor. Lord Mayor is a ceremonial role that rotates between councillors and confers little additional notability. Miraclepine in de-prodding argues that Birmingham's size makes its councillors notable, but that's not been the usual interpretation of WP:NPOL in UK politics. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lord mayor is a ceremonial role and does not make one notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lord mayor is a ceremonial role that rotates annually among the city councillors, not an inherently notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article. And while Birmingham is large and important enough that its city councillors could clear the bar if their articles featured substantive content about their political importance and were well-referenced to significant press coverage, they also don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing — but this article literally just states that she exists, the end, and references the fact to two pieces of coverage in the context of her health status, one primary source, one photograph, and zero coverage of her political career. This is not the depth of substance or the type of sourcing we require to deem a local politician notable enough for an international encyclopedia: the notability test for municipal politicians is the ability to write a substantive article, not just the ability to verify that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rotating lord mayorships do not make one notable, and there is not enough sourcing here otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some more sources and information. I wonder if the coverage on her experimental treatment here, here and here would be enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Achaea (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input to the article. Those references are something, although it looks a bit WP:ROUTINE to me. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass the WP:GNG. If councillors in big cities are generally assumed notable (which they shouldn't be) then the encylopedia would end up with a lot of very bare articles about them. Ralbegen (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shintaro Morimoto[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A similar article has been once deleted. Subject of article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NACTOR Celestina007 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The previous article was deleted via WP:PROD since it was unsourced, and has no bearing on this iteration. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The subject is notable, had multiple significant role in notable films and TV series therefore passing WP:NACTOR. Andrew Base (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yew Tree Manor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A country house which Jeremy Corbyn grew up in, and as such the UK media have reported on it. It strikes me that this property is not notable other than this famous association, and I don't believe it needs to have its own article. Uhooep (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no real notability, seems to be a case of political point scoring.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it a listed building on its own, or included in a listed historic district? That matters a lot. It well could be, from its age. The article creator might not have thought that was important, but it could make all the difference here. We need someone with skill looking up listed building status to comment. --Doncram (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a listed building, from a thorough text and map search on https://historicengland.org.uk/ (the website of Historic England, the relevant government body). Nearby Pave Lane Farmhouse is Grade II listed, but that's definitely a different building. Qwfp (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable other than for its association with the Corbyns. All the article's references mention it in that context. Qwfp (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I filtered on the 20th century in google books search and could find no mention of the house other than as part of an address in various lists of prominent citizens. Sometimes the fact someone famous or infamous lived in a house may make it notable, particularly if it is turned into a museum, such as the Eugene V. Debs Home where the U.S. Socialist leader lived. But that hasn't happened in this case. TFD (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Norwegian First Division players[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Train wreck list, no sources given, has the fun characteristic of putting recentist weight on the latter years at the same time as being outdated. The list even states that it's not a comprehensible list of 1. divisjon players, since the league is far from fully professional and players who play there don't get Wikipedia articles as a result of that. It only lists some 1. divisjon players, those who have played in another, better leagues. Geschichte (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like big ass lists like this, that why we have categories! Govvy (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 12:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Compare to say the A-League foreign page this isn't really notable enough to hav it's own page. There is also the fact that this is a second tier league which isn't professional and wouldn't be notable enough for this page. HawkAussie (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Any merge / redirect actions can occur by ordinary editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikes Fire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There were 58,083 wildfires in the U.S. in 2018. The Ikes Fire and the fires below were not notable in any way. In most cases, no structures were destroyed, no one was injured, and the fires only received local news coverage. Many pages were never updated or expanded, and some of them, like the Reef Fire, still say they are "currently burning" even though it happened more than 2 years ago. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Ikes Fire, I am also nominating the following pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between the deletion of the sentence with "still burning" in it and deleting the article, the former is more useful. The first six articles are less than 2 megs; most of the rest are over 2 megs and as much as 4. Misrepresentation of this sort, and by deleting huge swathes of article content before nomination, is all too common and should be addressed. Anarchangel (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how some of them being slightly longer makes them notable, or how that is misrepresentation? I only nominated articles which are clearly not notable. None of them had serious injuries, fatalities, major damage, or significant news coverage. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think we should just delete all of these. Perhaps some individual pages should be redirected or deleted, but not as a group. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm making my vote procedural keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not see the need to mass delete this content. We are a community edited encyclopedia. Some of our editors do not have the interest to sustain their efforts. I'd rather see the complaining editor take the time it took to create this AfD, to bring these articles up to snuff. I left the examples as they were because they are now examples in this discussion. While I was researching the Maria Fire, I discovered there is a checkerboard of wildfire information dating back into the 1920's here in California. Maybe it even goes deeper but I found such dates. Maybe nobody has applied sufficient effort and knowledge to this, but as climate change comes to affect our surroundings, more and more of this documentation can be compiled through the kind of open source accumulation of information that wikipedia is, to help make some coherence to what is now just terror. FIRE! Why don't we just delete all articles about places without zip codes? They're small and so they must be insignificant. Or they are part of the patchwork of information necessary to complete the picture. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make my vote KEEP Trackinfo (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a damned newspaper (or an undamned one). Local coverage only, a grand total of three injuries, little damage and only scattered evacuations in the entire bunch. If all of these were the results of one giant fire, it still wouldn't merit an article, much less dozens. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge all Content is merely procedural news of the extent burned and fails WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Our ATD is that these can be discussed at 2015 California wildfires, 2018 Oregon wildfires, etc. The Notes column of the tables in these can certainly handle the small amount of content here. Reywas92^Talk 23:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think a mass AfD of 35 articles (if I counted right) all at the same time is the best way to handle this. This has the potential to be a giant mess by bundling this all together like this. Hog Farm (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only a mess if you make it one. I see no reason why, if someone can mass-produce one-line stubs – often lazily cited to nothing but the incident database (almost all of these were created by two users) – without discussion at all, we can't have a single discussion to merge them. It's a much bigger mess and waste of people's time to have to vote on Topock Fire, Owens River Fire, Sage Fire, etc. individually. If you have a suggestion how to divide these go ahead, but I reject the idea that nominations cannot be bundled and they should be procedurally closed. Give an automatic relisting, and admins don't have to close them all the same way if people have selective concerns/improvements. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally would think that a Merge to the various applicable "fires in X state for 20XX" is the right way to go about this, but I personally think that's a lot easier to discuss if the fires are grouped by applicable merge target. Hog Farm (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - While there are a lot of nominated articles, they are all stubs that will never be anything more than stubs (unless Jimmy Hoffa's body is discovered as a result), following the general patern of a location, a date, the number of acres burned, and status. These are all routine fires, with little resulting damage/disruption, so why should we repackage them in lists? These are even less consequential than say List of multi-vehicle collisions in California in 2019. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into lists. Could be by state or date. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above, or if you are an admin who absolutely must do something, redirect each to a relevant location. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J. Edens[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable soldier who lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General officers are notable per WP:SOLDIER. And they have always been held to be so at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER part 2, "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." User: Jamesallain85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesallain85 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject passes WP:MILPERSON #2 as a brigadier general. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs a lot of work, but meets WP:SOLDIER. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my institutional memory is that we almost always keep articles about generals. A while ago (2010?) there was a debate about lower ranks. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:SOLDIER#2; technically that ~~guideline~~ essay is subversive to GNG but that is never held to be the case in practice. Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 21:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Clicking on the WP:SOLDIER link took me to the section so I didn't see the essay template plastered at the top of the page. I'll change my opinion to neutral on balance of it being an essay and there being much consensus that this is widely-accepted (maybe it should be changed to a guideline, that section). Happy Festivities! // J 947 ^{^(c)} 20:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per nomination Kitaab Ka Kida (talk)
Delete The above comments are puzzling. What sources actually demonstrate that this person is notable? (noting that WP:SOLDIER is an essay). From Googling his name, he's attracted virtually no coverage outside of US military websites. The modern US military has large numbers of generals, and not all attract any interest outside of it. Edens' most prominent role seems to have been Commanding General and Director of Army Safety at the U.S. Army Combat Readiness/Safety Center which is obviously not a very high-profile role outside of the Army. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an essay that is almost invariably accepted as a notability standard by those writing military bios on Wikipedia. Generals are notable. This is a longstanding and accepted standard. So nothing puzzling about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not actually the case - the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Commodores and brigadiers revealed that a lot of editors who specialise in military history topics don't consider 1 star generals particularly notable. Moreover, WP:SOLDIER doesn't say that generals are automatically notable - it tates that "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if they're a general, not that generals are automatically notable. From searching, I couldn't find independent sources to establish notability here. I'd ask that you and the editors who voted keep demonstrate the references which they think establish notability, and this should help to develop this article. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NahalAhmed (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata Barua (actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article doesn’t possess in-depth coverage in reliable source independent of him. Fails WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Since it is a Bangladeshi article, it is basically found in Bengali Wikipedia. Please search on google bn:সুব্রত_(অভিনেতা) and review sources via transliteration. 1 2 3 He work multiple movie and those source can be passed to WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 09:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acted in a lot of films. There's a complete list in Bangla Wikipedia. I think some of them are notable film in Bangladesh. It's seems to be there are also coverage in newspaper about this actor. --Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Chervinsky[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable photographer who fails WP:ANYBIO & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His notability WP:ARTIST is verifiable, and he is well known in the Art-and-Science field. It seems a WP:BEFORE may not have been performed. The artist has two works in the collection of the Houston Museum of Fine Arts [9], three works in the collection of the Portland Art Museum [10]. His work is covered significantly in scholarly article in "Issues in Science and Technology" journal [11] An obituary here:[12] more info [13]. The Griffin Museum of Photography has an award named after him, the John Chervinsky Emerging Photographer Award.[14] The article could be better sourced, and the writing could be improved, but those are not reasons for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements to the article, adding collections, exhibitions and citations. Netherzone (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ARTIST by virtue of museum collections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject does not have to meet ANYBIO, just the GNG. Which he does. There is sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. lab![edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Mitte27 (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough significant singers established. no news coverage on google , fails WP:GNG and Fails WP:NMUSIC.-Nahal^(T) 20:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starfury[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural AfD. This article is comparable in shape to Omega-class destroyer, whose AfD ended in redirection to List of starships in Babylon 5, but that ended up getting deleted in a recent AfD. With the most suitable merge target gone, should wikipedia keep this special interest article that's mostly sourced to production comments by the creators? – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be predominantly fancruft. Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I really want this to be notable, but I just don't see the sources. Fansites like [15] and a passing mention here or there are all I see. Ping me if someone finds anything better. If this is about to get deleted, I'd suggest transwiki to https://babylon5.fandom.com/wiki/Starfury_(Disambiguation) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Qomi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per notability guideline for biographies. Personasiran (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Personasiran (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Personasiran (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as head of an established religion and quasi-governmental authority, he's notable twice over. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with what Bearian said.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Hujjat al-Islam he’s likely to be notable, and his public position definitely gets him over. Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fathom Five (comics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional character(s) that fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, where IMO nonnotable fictional organisations shouldn't even be listed. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not establish notability, Fails WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 20:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to New Warriors#Folding Circle. Not enough depth coverage for individual articles. since fails WP:NFICTION and it already exists on New Warriors (non-admin closure) -Nahal^(T) 20:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folding Circle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional character(s) that fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Warriors, which is the only place the team was ever important. It covers them sufficiently. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Warriors#Folding Circle sounds like a good option for a nn fictional team. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Warriors#Folding Circle, since it already exists there. Not enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICups[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advert of a nonnotable practical joke prodict, which made a minor blip in the media in Fall 2014. Noted merely by association with iPhone. Notability not inherited. No lasting importance, hence no encyclopedic value Staszek Lem (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so a "redirect/merge" to Tin can telephone not an option? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a single-month amusing news and no lasting interest. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Helloooo, is anyone there?...", drat, i don't think my icup's working. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If Wikipedia had a criterion for being funny, it'd fail that too, but it doesn't. Anyway, it would not be out of place to Merge whatever can be salvaged into the section on Reception of the real product. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vlogger (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable film with no refs or sources; article and related articles appear to be authored by creator Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a feature piece from Variety, the older date of the film combined with its incredibly generic title make searching for articles a bit tricky but I have little doubt that they exist. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria School of Management[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable fake. Allmost all previously given refs were not existing. Not linked at all, except for "self references". ZH8000 (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill online school. We are not a directory. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League Satellite[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Deprod by User:Gameron46 with "Place is a notable place in DC comics lroe". With all due respect, that's not an argument that works here. Notable in-universe does not translate to notable in real world. For in-universe notability we have https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Marvel_Database _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you're recommending that an aspect of the DC universe be placed in a database about Marvel comics? Curious. ~T P W 13:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I meant https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Justice_League_Satellite_I --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At very best due to TNT, the fact there is all sorts of talk of being in other media with no sourcing is troubling. We clearly lack secondary sourcing. Not every place that comes up in a story, even repeatedly, is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. It's notable in the fiction and that list already has a brief entry for it. It might be worthwhile to merge real-world info like first appearance and name its creators. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: merge Justice League Satellite and Justice League Watchtower into one, Justice League headquarters. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And then we AfD the new article? What's the point? How will the new article be better than the current one plus the other one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe to save the incoming links, but otherwise delete. WP:ALLPLOT, fictional locations are rarely ever notable. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails to establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe as per reasons above. WP:ALLPLOT.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League Watchtower[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Deprod by User:Gameron46 with "the Watchtower is a notable base in DC comic". With all due respect, that's not an argument that works here. Notable in-universe does not translate to notable in real world. For in-universe notability we have https://dc.fandom.com/ _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. It's notable within the fiction, and it already has an entry here. It might be worthwhile to merge some real-world info like first appearance and creators. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: merge Justice League Satellite and Justice League Watchtower into one, Justice League headquarters. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which will get listed here instantly. Because adding together two bad articles does not make the resulting one any better in this case. Why would it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe to save the incoming links, but otherwise delete. WP:ALLPLOT, fictional locations are rarely ever notable. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails to establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe as per above.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arvedui[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another minor character from Tolkien works. PRIMARY sources only, PLOT summary, no evidence of real world impact, literary analysis, etc. Fails GNG/NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The neologism "Tolkiencruft" is an apt description of this kind of article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only mentioned in the appendix of LOTR.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable character, at least until the unlikely event he shows up in LotR TV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arnor. Goustien (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe there are so many articles that are just minor characters from LOTR with no out of universe notability. Michepman (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Middle-earth#Geography. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhûn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional region of Middle-Earth that doesn't appear in main books/movies except maybe once or twice as a passing mention. PRIMARY sources, pure PLOT, fails GNG/NFICTION. Maybe soft delete and redirect to Middle-earth#Geography or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography It would appear that Rhûn has not yet caught the eye of any academics or journalists. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very minor fictional land, not visited in The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Realms of Arda. As usual, I see no value in the deletion of information that can be merged elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here shows any impact at all. The claim it is similar in some way to Asia lacks any sourcing. There is no third party discussion at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography. This region doesn't have substantial impact in Tolkien's works, much less in scholarly works. Hog Farm (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth#Geography, per Susmuffin. Goustien (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Müzeyyen Dilek Özbiler[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior national team, despite several calls up to the training camp. Plays in Turkish league which is not a WP:FPL league. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in the Turkish top-level women's league. CeeGee 08:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having played a full senior international and for not playing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). No evidence of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is the Turkish Women's First Football League (TFF), Turkey's top level football league, "a major amateur .. competion" so meeting WP:NSPORTS? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the headline text of the guideline is somewhat misleading. The full text (in the WP:SPORTCRIT section) is "a major international amateur competition". This is a domestic competition, so the subject does not meet the criteria. Number 5 7 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification, delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure; playing in the top division does not confer notability in this case. Number 5 7 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our already overbroad inclusion criteria for footballers. It is bad enough that 50% of the articles here are on footballers, we do not need to change that to 75% as the inclusionists seek. That will just lead to twice as many unmaitiined, no depth, fluff articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khrystyna Pereviznyk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior national team. Plays in Turkish league which is not a WP:FPL league. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in the Turkish top-level women's league. CeeGee 08:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having played a full senior international and for not playing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). No evidence of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, does this afd highlight an apparent discrepency? Pereviznyk does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having not played a full senior international or in a fully professional league, but does play in Turkish Women's First Football League (TFF), Turkey's top level football league, so appears to meet WP:NSPORTS (in a nutshell) ie. "if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition", or is the TFF not deemed "a major amateur .. competion"? just wondering. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the headline text of the guideline is somewhat misleading. The full text (in WP:SPORTCRIT) is "a major international amateur competition". This is a domestic competition, so the subject does not meet the criteria. Number 5 7 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification, delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. The fact that the league is top level is irrelevant. Number 5 7 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Elicker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NPOL criteria #1 for being the elected mayor of a small city. Fails criteria #2 given he has not received significant press coverage beyond local media, such as the New Haven Register and Hartford Courant, which by the way looks like ordinary campaign coverage. PK650 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 05:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 05:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be far, New Haven isn't exactly a small city — its population surpasses 100K, which is more than large enough that he would be accepted as notable if the article were actually meeting our requirements. But even in cities that size, mayors still aren't deemed "inherently" notable just because they exist: getting them over WP:NPOL #2 is a matter of writing a substantive article about their political importance, referenced to significant press coverage above and beyond just routine verification of his vote totals. But this basically just states that he exists, documents a bit of background information about his educational history without saying anything about his political career, and cites just two pieces of routine local coverage about his placements in election primaries and his own self-published campaign website. This is not how you demonstrate that a mayor is notable enough for inclusion — even in larger cities, an article about a mayor has to be substantive and well-referenced, not just verify that he exists, to be includable. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL clearly states: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office". Mayorship is not within those parameters, therefore we must look to criterion #2, i.e. "significant press coverage" for other politicians, which he has not. Size of the city does not matter per the above. I think we are in agreement. Buttigieg would be a good example of a notable mayor. PK650 (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except Buttigieg is notable for being a presidential candidate, not for being a mayor. Someone like Mike Duggan is a notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely. A simple custom-range Google search shows how he had extensive coverage prior to his announcement, due in part to his sexuality and also to his workings within the Democratic Party (running for DNC chair). Then again, of the dozens of presidential candidates every election (other parties and independents), only a handful are notable. Perhaps I should've clarified he would be a "good example of a notable mayor before his presidential run". Best, PK650 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to pass inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diship Garg[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NMUSIC. No sources I could find apart from spotify, amazon, etc links. It might be that sources in Hindi or Urdu are available which I am not privy to, but this far it looks like he's clearly non-notable. PK650 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 05:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 05:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tagged it for CSD A7. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sono Aibe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Her claim to notability arises from being "Senior Program Advisor" at Pathfinder International, all other positions being run of the mill jobs in different organizations. On further inspection, PI doesn't list her in their Staff section, so in fact one could consider her role as advisor a minor one, or at least one that is not essential enough to be described online. That said, I did investigate and could not find independent sources apart from this one, which just mentions her role at PI in passing, and is a publication to which she's contributed in the past. Also found speaking engagements such as this one, which are obviously insufficient for establishing notability. Edit: for anyone wondering about her ACADEMIC credentials, she has a handful of published articles, each with 3 citations at most. PK650 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 05:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 05:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 05:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not Wikipedia-notable; fails WP:GNG. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG notability not apparent, PROF highly unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Microsoft companies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of made up company names used in Microsoft products tutorials. WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's a weird one. The lead might be worth merging somewhere, but is unreferenced. The list however seems very trivial, and not useful outside a list of extreme trivia. I copied it (transwikified) to https://microsoft.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_fictional_Microsoft_companies so 'nothing is lost'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does this list exist? It is a collection of obscure information that no one actually cares about. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs in the Microsoft wiki (Yes, Virginia, there is one) where its documentation fans hang out, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I admittedly find this page interesting, but exactly what encyclopaedic value does this have? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is difficult to understand the whys & hows of such an article coming to be. Minor, trivial errata, literally 100% sourced to Microsoft. Not even to "hey look at our fictitious companies!" but rather to MSDN libraries and download links. ValarianB (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Susmuffin. Lepricavark (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like this article. But it belongs in the Microsoft wiki where Piotrus copied it to, not here. Vadder (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next "list of filler psuedonyms used in law suits" although that might be more useful than this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flow 187 (Rapper)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No signs this person meets WP:GNG. A review of the references provided show they're all from sites that allow PR agencies to post promotional pieces, in fact 3 of the links are the exact same press release just posted in different places. Article is full of unreferenced unsourced promotional claims like the subject being a "famous photographer." The "widely regarded as one of the most dynamic speakers" line is right from the press releases. User name on the account that created the page is the same as the group behind the press releases. His book is self published and not covered anywhere. No record label, no charted hits, no big collabs, etc. Puff piece. JamesG5 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick note, I didn't speedy this largely because one of the 2 editors involved with creating it has created it & had it speedied multiple times earlier this year, wanted to take it to AfD to clarify it instead of just speedying again. JamesG5 (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Daaang JamesG5 laid it all out like a G6. Definitely a puff piece with no indicia of reliability. Michepman (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with JamesG5. I removed poor and unreliable sources and the associated material as required by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The remaining sources are all copies of the same publicity piece, and demonstrate no notability. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems fine to have online. If anything it needs some minor edits not deletion. Wiki team let’s help this article this subject seems valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1701:E351:3D5A:C827:6FEB:CF29 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every blog is written through PR and Staff in every magazine or online pub or news... Also subject has many great references and collaborations, & book has been covered. I will site all references here that I found Online on this subject. I understand that You are not familiar with the artist in subject but there are many subjects on this website that have 0 relevance to be on here and are marked as not having enough supporting cites but are not marked for speedy deletion. Some of the people on this website abuse their power. JamesG5 Didi't lay it out at all. This is more references on the subject

Press & Links:

https ://open.spotify.com/artist/4BrrFONNOXK6mnArGNYQo6

https: //soundcloud.com/rob-flow-roots

https: //www.imdb.com/name/nm10653338/

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flow%20187

https: //www.instagram.com/flow187official/?hl=en

https://www.dopecausewesaid.com/dope-features/interview-los-angeles-based-rapper-author-and-entrepreneur-flow-187

https://www.thehypemagazine.com/2018/07/flow-187-the-wave/

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/tags/flow-187/

https://unitedmasters.com/flow-187

https: //mymixtapez.com/album/172511

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Flow+187&i=digital-music&search-type=ss&ref=ntt_srch_drd_B0773ZTWBY

https://music.apple.com/us/artist/flow-187/943409674

https://hiphopsince1987.com/2019/videos/flow-187-trap-video/

https://medium.com/@hillstromjarrod012/flow-187-hip-hop-musician-author-music-producer-6bc47b640ad6

https://genius.com/albums/Flow187/The-wave-flow-187

https://indiehitmaker.com/ihm_artist/flow-187/

http://www.fox21delmarva.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

http://miamibangerz.blogspot.com/2018/05/flow-187-flow187official-wave.html

https://www.abc6.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://www.news9.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://www.abc6.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://www.magic1065.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://www.fox34.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://thriveglobal.com/stories/what-this-music-artist-taught-me-about-passion-determination-creativity/

https://www.newreleasetoday.com/author_rank.php

https://ideamensch.com/rob-roots/

https://www.bookdepository.com/Falling-Isnt-Failing-Rob-Roots/9780615474670

Links pertaining music, Movies, Books, Etc are all included. I'm not going to over cite the subject if im writing facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomWestmeyers (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I respect the effort, but most of those sources are garbage. (Medium.com, amazon/com, newreleasetoday, mymixtapez.com). None of those would pass WP:RS. The few that are OK are all copies of each other and don't demonstrate the sustained, ongoing and significant coverage required by WP:SIGCOV. I have nothing but respect for the subject of this article and I respect of course the work of the people who contributed to the article, but Wikipedia has specific rules for writing biographies of living people (WP:BLP) and this just doesn't cut it. Michepman (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Resource Agency[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NCORP and GNG. None of the sources listed are about the company itself. Nor did a thorough search yield any either. The fact that the lede itself has a citation needed tag says it all. The claim that Venesulia Carr was invited to a run of the mill Pentagon presser means nothing when it comes to IDRA. PK650 (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yep, WP:NCORP isn't met. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources listed are about the company, no WP:RS. fails WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Freimann[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single independent reliable source available. Clearly fails GNG. PK650 (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article establishes notability Uhooep (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love Razer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly fails NMUSIC and GNG. Only sources available are blog posts, obscure music genre fan sites, or websites for very minor local events they played at. Could not find a single independent reliable source for the band itself. Their so-called "best album" claims are in fact from random fan/non-reliable music blogs, or "reader's top xx" type of polls. PK650 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking to Wikipedia:Notability_(music), criteria for Musicians and Ensembles, article 1, nominator says "Could not find a single independent reliable source" however Huffington Post, iHeartRadio, and Windsor Life Magazine (A print publication which ran a two-page spread on the subject) are all clearly sited in the references. ArteSonora.pt is based in Portugal, was established in 2008, has over 32,000 facebook readers, and is another example of a completely independent and international source. SleazeRoxx.com has been around since 2002, almost 18 years, with 23,000 facebook readers. DecibelGeek.com has been a blog/podcast combination since 2011, 9 years, with over 1 million downloads of the podcast surpassed in 2017. These may be "obscure music genre fan sites" but they are nevertheless independent from the subject, and well established reliable sources of editorial content for those fans. It is my belief that these sites meet the standards set forth in Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. The Article itself also went through the Articles for Creation process and was therefore vetted, approved and subsequently published by a user with over 13,500 contributions (OxonAlex), proving it was not solely the Article's creators who felt it met the notability requirements at the time of submission.Goldrecorddaddy (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that the purpose of Articles for Creation is to identify articles that "will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". This, of course, is subjective, and the crux of much discussion lately. Facebook readership unfortunately has no bearing over a source's reliability; in fact, it might even be disadvantageous. As for the particular sources you listed: see WP:RSPSOURCES. Huffpost contributor posts are generally considered unreliable. iHeartRadio is merely a paragraph stating their song was played at a sports match. Windsor Business Magazine (I can't access the online version for some reason, but this article might or might not have been printed) is a minor local publication (its website confidently states approx. 70k distribution). Interviews also aren't usually regarded as solid, nor are "staff" or "readers' picks", which this article rampantly boasts of. Other sources include this one, which is actually about a motorcycle charity event. All in all, I think sources available clearly point to no extensive coverage for a non-notable musical group. If you must brandish sources like those selected above, then evidently you're likely to be seen by any sensible editor as a local group that's seeking Wikipedia inclusion as a springboard to more coverage, etc. My comment re there being no sources was referring to the fact that no good quality sources could be found by my personal search outside those listed within the article. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must point out that this was reviewed a day after I received the permission. I haven't looked at the article again, but it could have been a bad decision by an inexperienced reviewer. ~~ OxonAlex - talk (AFC reviewer of article) 15:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, buddy. I am learning about Wikipedia every day, and in any case this would reinforce the notion of AfC's importance. Discussing notability is healthy and very much needed both as a mental exercise and as a precedent-building procedure. As stated above, I think the objective of AfC being to gauge whether an article would survive such a discussion has been met in the sense that we are now having that same discussion! Glad to hear your thoughts. Best, PK650 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just reviewed at WP:NPP. They have been going for 4 years and not made it yet. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BAND. Personally I don't think it is case WP:TOOSOON as their music is too generic. scope_creep^Talk 01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if their notability claim and sourceability improve. Passing GNG is not just a matter of showing that three hits of media coverage exist, and therefore the band is automatically exempted from having to actually have any notability claim more substantive than "media coverage exists" — GNG also takes into account the depth of coverage, the geographic range of where the sources are coming from, and the context of what the topic is getting coverage for. Bands are a topic that can frequently show a few hits of purely local coverage in purely local interest contexts in their hometowns, even while having no national profile and no extralocal coverage — see also city councillors, school board trustees, owners of non-chain local restaurants, high school athletes, winners of local poetry contests, etc. — so we don't just count the number of footnotes that represent real media outlets and keep anything that gets to three, we consider other factors as well. But the Windsor Star is the local newspaper in their hometown; Windsor Life is a local-interest magazine; the "iHeartRadio" source is really from CIMX-FM, a local radio station in Windsor, and does not reify into nationalized coverage just because 89X happens to be owned by a national media conglomerate; and while the Huffington Post can be a useful source in some contexts, it's weakened here by the fact that the HuffPo citation's author is the same blogger who's responsible for seven of the bad footnotes to blogs, which means it's here in the "HuffPo as group blog" sense rather than the "HuffPo as aggregator of syndicated real news" sense. So this simply is not enough coverage to exempt them from having to get over one or more of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Rodríguez (baseball)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of routine coverage of a minor league ballplayer. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are more than just routine. Also one of the top prospects in baseball.-- Yankees10 00:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We keep subjects with SIGCOV. One of the top prospects for MLB. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of the sources in the article demonstrate SIGCOV. Passes WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brzo Trči Ljanmi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rapper. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No fans, no plays. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 00:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill rapper; sources are videos and MTV-type shows. Ping me if you find decent English sources. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources.--Wakowako (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.